Went to the moon, we never went, was scared off, still going!?

reply to post by Consequence


We get it. You know everything about everything and you are always right. You're the man.

Originally posted by HelloImZach
reply to post by Consequence

 

We get it. You know everything about everything and you are always right. You're the man.

I don't know everything about everything nor am I always right.
However, if I choose to comment on something where I actually do have a clue, and I comment because I feel like there are things to be sorted out, it gives such an illusion?

Originally posted by Nucleardoom
We landed on the moon in 1969, and we're supposed to believe there wasn't enough funding for more missions beyond Apollo 17. What a joke, we all know a massive amount of money is funneled into black projects. Skylab was a joke and so is the I.S.S. for that matter.

A moon base would have much more value in many ways compared to orbiting stations. Eventually a moon base could have been utilized for future space missions to other planets taking into account that the gravity is 1/6th. that of earth or put another way about 83 percent less than earth. The amount of fuel needed to break free from the moon's gravitational pull would be far less than a launch from earth.

Another point to consider is we only took surface samples of rock, and dust, no substantial subsurface drilling was done to find out what the moon is really made up of. Once again this makes one question why there wasn't any serious attempt at doing this considering the vast amount of minerals and raw materials the moon could offer.

Is there already a base there? Who knows, but the possibility that one exists on the far side is intriguing especially when one takes into account the incredible amount of money invested into black projects. With that in mind we all know there wasn't a lack of funding, only a lack of money when the public is involved.

Well maybe you should think things through

Moon base Many tons of equipment expensive or difficult to get there (look at time to build ISS)

Launch from Moon Have to get the equipment / fuel there or manufacture on the moon (see Moon base above)

Subsurface samples Restricted time for Apollo missions and also the problem of taking required equipment.

Base already there NO have a look here for some nice hi-res pictures of the surface here.

LRO

Search any area in link above a good proportion of the Moon is now imaged!!

Many people here question what was done and come up with lame thing they think should have or should now be done it's just as well these people are not in charge or we would still be in caves wearing fur!

Can anyone post a photo of the Earth from the lunar surface? I'm not talking about photos taken from the orbiter or satellites. I'm talking about from an Apollo mission, from the lunar surface, with either the landing module or an astronaut in the foreground. I haven't found any, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.

We did not go to the moon. It was faked. You know they did Paranormal Activity for 16,000 dollars? Why would you spend 100's of billions to try and get to the moon when you could use an existing movie studio. Spend a few hundred grand and get an excellent movie done. The rest of the money they pocketed. Cuz it obviously doesn't take much to fool most people. Gald no one originally lied to people that the Star Trek show was real or we'd be talking about that right now. They told us there as a space race. They told us there was a cold war. Both lies. Meanwhile behind the scenes they were working together.

Originally posted by 1pirate
Am i the only person with first hand knowledge of the events in question on this site.

!!! You were part of the lunar landing mission? You went to the moon?
Or you just don't understand what "first-hand knowledge" actually means?

reply to post by Bilk22

Can anyone post a photo of the Earth from the lunar surface? I'm not talking about photos taken from the orbiter or satellites. I'm talking about from an Apollo mission with either the landing module or an astronaut in the foreground. I haven't found any, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.

Happy to oblige:



AS17-134-20384

Ah! Thank you. I have a few questions. Why is the Earth only partially illuminated as in a phase? Shouldn't it be fully visible? Why does it appear so small? The Earth is more than 3.5 times the diameter of the moon. Shouldn't it look much larger than the moon does to us in the night sky? Hope I'm stating this correctly.







Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

As viewed from he Moon, the Earth has phases too.

Look up focal length vs distance in cameras. You can have the Moon any size you want.

Originally posted by samkent
As viewed from he Moon, the Earth has phases too.

Look up focal length vs distance in cameras. You can have the Moon any size you want.

So if we know the focal length of the lens, can we calculate what the visual size of the Earth would be?

Originally posted by samkent
As viewed from he Moon, the Earth has phases too.

Look up focal length vs distance in cameras. You can have the Moon any size you want.

One other question. Well maybe a few. Since the moon doesn't have an atmosphere, even with the light of the sun shining on the surface, shouldn't stars be visible in the dark sky? How about other planets? Certainly NASA would want pictures of other celestial bodies from the Moon. How about images of the Sun from the moon?

I, myself have often wondered about the validity of why we did not return. There is no doubt we went (The Russians would have proved it easily enough).

The only way we will ever know the truth is if it ever becomes affordable to do amateur extremely high resolution images (with some major breakthrough in optics or CCD’s) or if amateur craft/landers ever get affordable…

reply to post by Bilk22

Ah! Thank you. I have a few questions. Why is the Earth only partially illuminated as in a phase? Shouldn't it be fully visible? Why does it appear so small? The Earth is more than 3.5 times the diameter of the moon. Shouldn't it look much larger than the moon does to us in the night sky? Hope I'm stating this correctly.

As seen from the Moon, the Earth has phases, complimentary to the ones we see the Moon go through from Earth. As seen from the Moon, the Earth is a tad shy of two degrees wide. People tend to "misoverestimate" the size of the Moon in the sky, due to the "Moon Illusion." Go out tonight. The Moon is nearly full but you can completely cover it with your pinkie. The Earth can be blotted out by your thumb from the Moon.

reply to post by TheSparrowSings


Maybe more to the point was whatever/whoever was on the moon when NA got there

could have scared the entire world - if they let us know.

And we'll never know now.

My wife's parents used to host yearly "pheasant hunts" for some of the Apollo astronauts,

who would fly their own airplanes into Nebraska and come to their house for the post hunt

parties (Either Collins or Aldrin, to name a few, i think).

These guys were always nice to my wife (as a kid), and she remarked they

were all apparently good, honest midwestern types who were chosen invariably because they

always follow orders, and would never go against the government. Neil proved that right.

reply to post by Bilk22

One other question. Well maybe a few. Since the moon doesn't have an atmosphere, even with the light of the sun shining on the surface, shouldn't stars be visible in the dark sky? How about other planets? Certainly NASA would want pictures of other celestial bodies from the Moon. How about images of the Sun from the moon?

Same reason dont see any stars/planets during the day on earth

The sun washes out the light from them

Moon landings took place during lunar daytime (which lasts 2 weeks)

Pointing a camera directly into the sun from the moon would simply burn a spot on the film as the undiffued light
from the sun would be focused onto a single point

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Bilk22

 

One other question. Well maybe a few. Since the moon doesn't have an atmosphere, even with the light of the sun shining on the surface, shouldn't stars be visible in the dark sky? How about other planets? Certainly NASA would want pictures of other celestial bodies from the Moon. How about images of the Sun from the moon?

Same reason dont see any stars/planets during the day on earth

The sun washes out the light from them

Moon landings took place during lunar daytime (which lasts 2 weeks)

Pointing a camera directly into the sun from the moon would simply burn a spot on the film as the undiffued light
from the sun would be focused onto a single point

But there are times you can see stars and planets during the day here on Earth. You can see them during twilight and through the atmosphere.

Filters could be used to photograph the sun as well as adjusting exposure. I've done it plenty of times. I'm sure we've all seen pics of sunsets, etc. Just curious why NASA wouldn't photograph the Moon's sky.

What I found really interesting about this subject in general is how many of the moon landing conspiracy people were so quick to defend any questioning of what we were presented from NASA regarding the recent Curiosity landing/subsequent media from the rover.

To be clear, I believe that both events happened as claimed by NASA.

That said however, the Curiosity landing/subsequent media would be MUCH easier to fake. MUCH. We have some people in a control room, some radio communication amongst themselves/coming from Curiosity, some crap thumbnails and images of what could easily be a desert or CGI environment using today's technology. So forth and so on.

So what's my point? My point is that SIMPLY BECAUSE WE ARE ALIVE and experiencing this in OUR TIME, we have some kind of innate belief in it that prevents most from questioning it. We "just know" it's happening as described, I mean think of all the people who would have to be involved in such a hoax if it were one.

So what I say to the moon landing was fake claimers -- just remember that when that happened in 1969, there where a whole lot of people ALIVE who were experiencing it in THEIR TIME, they "just knew" it was happening as was being shown on their televisions and all over their airwaves. Similarly, many would have had to have been involved if it were a hoax, etc.

So it's just funny to see the moon landing is fake crowd act like anyone questioning Curiosity must be a friggin' lunatic. :-P

Originally posted by Bilk22

Originally posted by samkent
As viewed from he Moon, the Earth has phases too.

Look up focal length vs distance in cameras. You can have the Moon any size you want.

So if we know the focal length of the lens, can we calculate what the visual size of the Earth would be?

Also need the film format as the focal length of the lens is not the whole story, film size or format or now in the digital age sensor size needs to be known.

See info in link

Crop Factor

Originally posted by Bilk22

Originally posted by samkent
As viewed from he Moon, the Earth has phases too.

Look up focal length vs distance in cameras. You can have the Moon any size you want.

One other question. Well maybe a few. Since the moon doesn't have an atmosphere, even with the light of the sun shining on the surface, shouldn't stars be visible in the dark sky? How about other planets? Certainly NASA would want pictures of other celestial bodies from the Moon. How about images of the Sun from the moon?

Exposure the cameras were set to picture the surface so NO stars , and for the astronauts they would have to dark adapt, any bright object in the field of view would make their eyes adjust to that light level.